Several legislators, including members of the governing Conservative party, had challenged the premier over plans to copy and paste EU rules into British legislation under the EU Withdrawal Bill. They argued it would give ministers power to change laws without the agreement of parliament.
Downing Street announced on December 11 it would now accept an amendment giving the House of Commons new rights to demand votes when ministers use powers dating back to the reign of Henry VIII to rewrite law.
In an interview with Sputnik, Professor Aileen McHarg, a constitutional expert at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, said it was the right thing to do as the government potentially faced defeat over the issue.
"The EU (Withdrawal) Bill confers a number of powers on ministers, via secondary legislation, to adjust the statute book in the light of Brexit and to implement the eventual withdrawal agreement. Although there is general agreement that such powers are necessary given the timetable for Brexit, as initially introduced, the breadth of these powers and the inadequacy of the arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny was the subject of widespread criticism, including by the cross-party Commons Procedure Committee," she told Sputnik.
The professor revealed there was a good chance that the Bill would have been amended as it passed through the Commons or the Lords. Accordingly, the government has pre-empted the possibility of a defeat by accepting the amendments proposed by the Procedures Committee, he added.
"The effect is to allow MPs to decide what level of parliamentary scrutiny particular pieces of secondary legislation should be subject to, thus reducing the risk that the government's powers will be used to introduce important policy changes or changes that go further than is strictly necessary. It is, clearly, a good thing," she added.
The proposal will now add an extra layer of parliamentary scrutiny to proposed changes from EU law as they are moved into British law.
